you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 5 months ago (87 children)

I'm inclined a little to agree with you, but it's not like he made his money because Gabe refused to be run by anyone. He pays his employees really well. My dad's friend still is working at Valve after going there 20 some odd years ago. He rakes in money like no ones business. But they are all benefitting from the work they have done.

Secondly, nobody knows how charitable he is in his private life. The fact that he's so private about it, inclines me to believe he's probably a decent guy, who just doesn't like the spotlight. He may be a billionaire, but how many billionaires have their employees love them like at Valve?

Lastly, most of his money is tied up in shares of the company, as he is 50%+ owner. He may use that to leverage cash loans, but he's also just smart. He doesn't really do that all that much, except when he's buying his research yachts. And those shares are only accessible by the workers, as it's a private company. Why? Because the money belongs to the laborers who produce the goods.

Now, I'm willing to change my view if there's ever a situation in which Gabe Newall is intentionally trying to avoid paying taxes, but that hasn't happened yet.

Bezos, Musk, Gates, Trump, Zuckerburg, Page, Brin, Ellison, Dell, Huang, the Waltons, Blomberg, Thiel. There's so many worse people out there. I do agree wealth is bad, but what the aforementioned are doing is significantly worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 87 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (58 children)

    Now, I'm willing to change my view if there's ever a situation in which Gabe Newall is intentionally trying to avoid paying taxes, but that hasn't happened yet.

    What about exploiting child gambling? Valve's value, and thusly Gabe's value, skyrocketed after introducing lootboxes to TF2, CSGO, DOTA2, etc. He can be as charitable as he fucking wants, but he still defends lootboxes while taking little to no efforts to ensure that children aren't gambling on his platform. He's had... how many years to fix this problem now? Too many. He's not fixed the problem, and continues to reap the rewards in the meantime.

    As far as I'm concerned, he's just as much of a piece of shit as any other billionaire. The only difference is that he makes toys that a lot of us really, really like; toys that we apparently like so much so that we're willing to handwave child gambling as long as it doesn't get in the way of making it moderately convenient to download DRM-infested games.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 58 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago (54 children)

    Mate, I did not know parents were not responsible for their own children. That is on me. I'm glad to hear all the work I've done on my network and computers to make them safe for my children was a moot point.

    Adults like gambling. It's not Valve's fault that children are using it cause their parents are ignorant of their own child.

    As far as the DRM stuff goes, that's all based on the publisher. And it's not that difficult to bypass. Valve has shown time and time again, that they are a business for their customers. Their customers like a solid platform that works and is easy to use and has a community.

    Let's take a look a Linux real quick. If it wasn't for Valve, Linux gaming wouldn't be what it is today. They did that and gave it to the community. I'm sorry other platforms can't be bothered to put in that kind of effort. If you wanna play with the big dogs, you gotta get off the porch. And Ubisoft wants to take the easy way out through a lawsuit. They need to do better with their storefront. Offer good exclusives. Try to actually appeal to your customers.

    I still remember when everybody bitched about Steam when half-life 2 came out. It was kinda bad, and people were mad about it. But Valve was just ahead of the curve. It allowed them to publish updates, patches, anti-cheating. And soon enough, the community grew to love it. It just worked. If something broke in your game, it was probably fixed in a week if it was a Valve game. It gave so much to PC players.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 54 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (39 children)

    Adults like gambling. It’s not Valve’s fault that children are using it cause their parents are ignorant of their own child.

    If adults want to gamble, fine. Let's enforce gambling laws and get this over with. It would also solve the children gambling problem because that would be illegal. But this is why Valve's gambling service is indefensible. Valve is actively trying to prevent the gambling classification because if it gets treated like actual gambling it most likely stops being profitable. I don't necessarily have an issue with gambling, I have an issue with it not being treated as gambling. And all the other things Valve has done that have been positive for gaming do not justify giving Valve a free pass on gambling.

    To bring it back to Gaben, he isn't avoiding taxes but he is avoiding the (gambling) law because it makes him more money, so is it that different from avoiding taxes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (38 children)

    That is a fair point. However, I must ask, what is the different between what Valve is doing with loot boxes v. every single trading card game out there. MTG, Pokémon, Yu-Gi-Oh, or Disney's Lorcana? You are purchasing an item that has items in it that are random. The only reason they have value is because people have the option to just buy skin they want on Valve's marketplace. Just like people have the option to buy a specific Pokémon card from a third party.

    The other thing that Valve has done is, there's no inherent value to the item. You can sell items for Steam Wallet funds, to then use in the marketplace. So, to me it seems, it's really easy to set up a Steam account to not be allowed to purchase items. Which would include adding money to a Steam wallet for the marketplace. So, no this is not a "think of the children" issue. It's yet again, another people are bad parents and can't be bothered to use parental controls on their children's electronics. Or take steps to prevent them from spending real money. Or take steps to prevent them from playing too much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago* (37 children)

    That is a fair point. However, I must ask, what is the different between what Valve is doing with loot boxes v. every single trading card game out there. MTG, Pokémon, Yu-Gi-Oh, or Disney’s Lorcana? You are purchasing an item that has items in it that are random. The only reason they have value is because people have the option to just buy skin they want on Valve’s marketplace. Just like people have the option to buy a specific Pokémon card from a third party.

    I don't see how that matters at this point, you've already called it gambling. Are you going to walk that back to defend Valve? After all the only reason to bring up this point is to claim it's not actually gambling. And to address your point, yes I also consider MTG, Pokemon and most trading card games the physical equivalent of a lootbox and a form of gambling. I also know they're not gambling in a legal sense but we'll get to where Valve differs in the next part.

    The other thing that Valve has done is, there’s no inherent value to the item. You can sell items for Steam Wallet funds, to then use in the marketplace. So, to me it seems, it’s really easy to set up a Steam account to not be allowed to purchase items. Which would include adding money to a Steam wallet for the marketplace. So, no this is not a “think of the children” issue. It’s yet again, another people are bad parents and can’t be bothered to use parental controls on their children’s electronics. Or take steps to prevent them from spending real money. Or take steps to prevent them from playing too much.

    Actually that's no longer true and that's why there was a lawsuit filed against Valve at the start of this year. The items now have a value because you sell the things to get Steam credit and then use Steam credit to buy a Steam Deck and then sell the Deck for real money. It's no longer a closed system, you can get the money out. And once again, this wouldn't be an issue if Valve either a) stopped their gambling or b) adhere to gambling laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (36 children)

    Holy fuck, didn't realize so many kids were buying and selling steam decks. Damn, got me. I admit defeat. Later, friend.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (35 children)

    Oh yeah, strawman the fuck out of my argument, that'll definitely show me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (33 children)

    Actually I'm sad. I'm sad I'm having a conversation with someone who thinks they know more about the law than the New York Attorney general. I've lost, there's no argument I could make that could get through the Dunning-Kruger.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (22 children)

    That is an appeal to authority. Every one is susceptible to a mistake. And I believe this one is. I think the court will rule in favor of Valve if they don't dismiss it. The way the economy works inside of Steam is what insulates it from being gambling. NY is arguing that being able to redeem your wallet for a Deck and then selling that deck, introduces the cash component of gambling. Not only that, but third party sellers are brought up and that adds several other layers that will be harder to make the case for. In addition, they claim Valve knowingly doesn't care about the third party sellers. That, in and of itself, is not Valve's problem specifically. If people want to pay money for a cosmetic item, it's no different than Pokémon. Again, an insulating layer. That is a far cry from an open and shut case, as you seem to think it to be.

    Multiple lawyers would point out that introducing steps to acquire cash insulates it. Especially since one of those steps is selling an item. This economy that they are trying to build out is shaky at best. But that's just like, my opinion man. Do you have any of your own thoughts regarding the case? Have you read the case documents and come to a conclusion for yourself? Or are you just reading an article and calling it a day?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (20 children)

    Jeez dude, didn't realize you weren't interested in this case. If so, then why are you so passionate about something of which you know so little?

    You are willing to put utter faith in articles and people rather than reading the case, looking into it, and coming to a conclusion? And then vehemently defending those opinions of of others. Why?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (18 children)

    Do you listen to Dr. Oz? He's a surgeon. Practiced. Does that make his medical opinion gospel?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    Y-yes. So, you should read the case for yourself, so you can make an estimation. The case is a rough outline of how the State is going to attack. You can then, try your best to think of any legal explanation against it. Then judge for yourself if Valve is in the wrong. But I already said that and I feel the looping starting. whoaaaaaa

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (8 children)

    lmao im sure there is no money involved at all helping the ag care

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (7 children)

    And how exactly does this supposed money change the legal arguments made in lawsuit?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

    because why should anyone care about the legal arguments or any ags actual knowledge about said laws if they only serve garbage companies like epic or ubi (and while pretending companies like draft kings dont exist) and that epic hasn’t attempted the same control that steam has, they just suck at the actual service part

    and more to my point, this is really what the ny ag thinks is the best use of their time right now, lmao, not any kind of major fraud going on right now that maybe they want to look into if gambling is so very bad

    epic games and its ‘coalition of state attorney generals’ is not self serving at all, epic just just really really cares about consumers!

    if you can’t compete, litigate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    You're going to have to explain how Epic or Ubisoft benefit from shutting down Valve's gambling machine. If it's "Valve makes less money" then that's an irrelevant point because even if you shut down the gambling money Valve is still raking in cash. Valve simply goes from making an insane amount of money to making a slightly less insane amount of money. Valve losing gambling money is going to have zero impact on the PC storefront space. Valve losing the lawsuit in the article, now that could have an impact on the PC storefront space.

    And you know, it's pretty sad that you instantly went to "she's corrupt" instead of even giving the smallest benefit of doubt to the possibility that she might be doing it because it's morally wrong. It's a sad because in your mind morality doesn't exist and corruption is everywhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (4 children)

    if you can’t see how hurting valve is a direct benefit to epic or ubi we're wasting my time

    irrelevant point? lol that’s not at all how business works

    i don’t care about the gambling money beyond the hypocrisy of it while sports betting, digital currency markets and fucking polymarket exist, and i’m claiming shadiness because epic has its hand up multiple ags asses in multiple markets, just take a look at apple or google stores as well as valve, epic is funding this politic to its own benefit because it failed so fucking hard competing the real way and the ags see it as an easy target since coalitions cost money

    if she actually gave a damn about gambling we’d be seeing her go after sports betting first by sheer volume, draft kings is fucking disgusting

    steam is actually doing some positive things for consumers and it’s asinine to start with valve

    if you think morality is involved in the american legal system you live a charmed life

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (3 children)

    if you can’t see how hurting valve is a direct benefit to epic or ubi we’re wasting my time

    irrelevant point? lol that’s not at all how business works

    Did you even read what I said? Valve losing it's gambling money is going to have no impact on their market share in the PC storefront market space because Valve is already making boatloads of money even without the gambling money. Valve doesn't need to do anything to make up for the loss because they don't need to be greedy. They can eat "the loss" and continue business as usual which means there is no direct benefit for any competing storefront. If anything it might end up being a net negative because (while it probably won't directly impact Epic or Ubisoft) some big studios still use lootboxes and this ruling would further push getting them banned. There's an indirect benefit to Epic of Ubisoft in the form of Valve making less money but when you make insane amounts of money making slightly less insane amounts of money isn't anything Epic of Ubisoft will feel. So yeah, I'd like to see you explain how the gambling lawsuit would directly benefit Epic of Ubisoft.

    if she actually gave a damn about gambling we’d be seeing her go after sports betting first by sheer volume

    So she shouldn't go after Valve where there's a legitimate case to be made? Because she should be going after some other nondescript entity that she may not even have a case against? Yeah, makes total sense.

    if you think morality is involved in the american legal system you live a charmed life

    So according to you SKG movement isn't driven by the moral point that we should own the things we buy? So who is funding that initiative? Who gains to benefit from it? Come on, give me the juice. Let me suckle on that conspiracy teat. It's all conspiracies, no good guys ever exists. Ross Scott is a paid actor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    lol you restating your position doesn't suddenly make it true

    just because you have no idea how fortune 500s work isn't my concern

    if she cares about valve while draft kings, polymarket, tcgs, roblox, and digital coins exist she’s a joke and this is from someone who thinks gambling is a cancer

    roblox is literal gacha for preteens in a cesspool with pedos

    and she doesn't have a case for valve either lol, this shits going nowhere, this whole ‘think of the kids bullshit’ for a game rated M and a site requiring you be > 13 is just more fud for a real id

    it’s not conspiracy to literally google epic using states to sue competition: google apple valve have been targeted for anticompetitive practices

    epic games anti trust + state coalitions all while epic has historically come under fire for also being anticompetitive pure lol

    and for the gambling charges google all the states + federal governments (eu as well) pushing for online ids for various ‘think if the children’ reasons

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    spend 2 minutes yourself or don’t, i don’t really care

    here’s a entire reddit thread on it you lazy fuck

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1rqz5i4/steam_support_about_the_new_york_attorney_general/

    “In addition, although this case is about illegal gambling, it is important to note that Valve’s promotion of games that glorify violence and guns helps fuel the dangerous epidemic of gun violence, particularly among young gamers who can become numbed to grave violence before their brains are fully developed."

    look at this shit, complete fucking fud

    https://www.aclum.org/publications/ai-powered-surveillance-is-turning-the-united-states-into-a-digital-police-state-now-is-the-time-to-stop-it/

    this from the aclu

    https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press-releases/roblox-reddit-and-discord-users-compelled-to-use-biometric-id-system-backed-by-palantir-co-founder-peter-thiel/

    but go ahead and tell me you think the aclu is big on conspiracy theories

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (13 children)

    That's a whole lot of distraction from the point, mate. If you found out that a casino was allowing children to gamble on their property, would you not want to shut down that casino?

    Yes, the parents shouldn't be allowing the kids to gamble. But parents don't always "allow" their kids to do the things they do in the first place. You know damn well you did things as a child that you weren't "allowed" to do, things that you were told specifically not to do. You know that you successfully hid things from your parents, but expect other parents to find everything? Most of this happens completely under the parents' radar.

    Addicts steal, and that's no different for children, either. Often they'll take their parent's credit card in hopes that the charge goes unnoticed, or they'll obfuscate the charge by spending money on another currency that gets converted after the fact to one used for lootboxes.

    There are even worse things that an addict will do for money. Some may resort to scams; sometimes they'll set up catfish social media profiles to bait gooners into paying them gobs of money for fake pictures. Some may resort to worse behavior; I've seen instructional TikTok videos for children to lure adults onto Roblox for sexual acts, to be paid in Robux, which can then easily be converted into just about any other game's currency. Literal child prostitution.

    But sure. Let's blame the parents, instead of the billionaire's child casino.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    I could not give a shit. I am a parent of two and no, you cannot watch them every second. But you can watch your bank accounts. You can watch your child play. You can watch your child's behavior change if they start getting really into gambling.

    I had an older child I kinda took care of, who thinks of me as a father figure; he has none. He called me one night cause he was 16 and drunk and high and didn't want to drive home. He said, "I called you, because you always said to call you if this happened. I'm so sorry“. I picked him up and helped his hangover the next morning and we had a long talk. That kid is on the ocean sending underwater robots to explore as an electrical engineer. Cause he liked that I did that. EE, not the water stuff lol.

    Parents are responsible for their children and children have to learn responsibility for their actions. And that is a lesson that you have to teach your children. The best way is through learning. I've watched my mom raise an addict, so don't you fucking dare try to appeal to me. She was the perfect mom. He just got in with the wrong crowd and went downhill. He's sober now, but it was rough growing up. But she put in a hell of a lot of work into him.

    I tell you that, because I'm not here to say we should ban public schools, because that's where my brother tried heroin. I'm not here to say we should fund private schools with taxpayer money, because there are drugs in our schools. It's a fucking bad stroke of luck. Fire and damnnation, this got me hot. Don't fall off your pedestal as you get on your high horse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    You're right, I just gave you my personal experiences about parenting children. I even brought up my brother in recovery, distinctly because you brought up addicts. I still stand by it being a parental issue. Don't have kids if you don't want that responsibility. This kind of argument has the same vibes as, "we need age verification on websites". No, we don't. Parents need to be better. I'm a millennial parent and I know how the internet works. I also know that every app nowadays has parental controls built in. Moreso, I can specifically block things on the router. The tools are there. Just be a parent. How many children do you have?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (8 children)

    You're right, we are far from the point. At what step in the loot box/gambling process is money exchanged. Then tell me how gambling works. Then tell me if they are the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    If it's gambling, loot boxes should be items of value, redeemable for cash, correct? And Valve should be the one providing that cash, as they are the child casino, correct?

    Yes, that's literally how the Steam marketplace works. Where am I losing you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    Oh, so now we're at the "pachinko isn't gambling because you have to go across the street to get cash for your prizes" argument. Knew we'd eventually get there.

    You see, in Japan, pachinko parlors are "technically" not gambling because you exchange your winnings for cheap toys, similar to exchanging tickets at the Chuck E Cheese counter. Except there's a store directly across the street from the pachinko parlor that buys those toys for, well wouldn't you know it, the exact amount of your winnings!

    And since it's "not gambling" in the eyes of the law, it's not damaging, right?

    https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article-abstract/49/suppl_1/i17/105541

    Conclusion. This study revealed that the prevalence of pathological gambling, especially among men, was much higher in Japan than in other countries. Pachinko was very popular and was strongly suggested to have contributed to this heightened prevalence.

    Oof.

    Yes, it's still gambling even if you have to access a grey market to obtain fiat currency. Why? Because obtaining fiat currency isn't a defining factor of gambling.

    Where will you take those goalposts next?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Okay, let's get rid of all TCG too. I never argued against the dangers of gambling. I never said it wasn't, it is gambling. But that's not what this post is about. This post is specifically about a NY case against Valve. That requires knowledge of the NY Penal Code. But if you want to continue being self-righteous rather than actually debating the points, then you're welcome to continue this debate with me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Where will you take those goalposts next?

    ^ That was rhetorical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Well, we could always go back to talking about what's best for the children? Those days were good, weren't they? It's still about the parents. We don't admonish parents with regard to other gotchas. Or if you do, then good for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Fucking Nintendo and that piece of shit Pokémon company! Fuck Magic the gathering, a bunch of groomers in the 90s trying to get kids addicted to gambling!

    GUMBALL MACHINES AND THE GAMBLING OF FLAVOR!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • All of those things were specificially degined to encourage addiction to buying the product, like yeah we should do something about those practices when they cross a line. Idk why you think it should all be fair game just because a less problematic version of the issue exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago*

    What if governments just banned any form of real financial gambling in video games? Valve is still a business, they are going to try and make money, even if it's shitty. Also a parental problem if you are loading your childs Steam account with money 24/7 so they can gamble.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (27 children)

    So much wrong with this. Gabe pays his extremely small workforce very well while keeping the lions share for himself. At 300-400 employees getting paid 300k on average, that is only around one hundred million in total payroll compared to 17 billion in revenue.

    Gabe is in no way a good guy here. He could afford to pay his workers a cool million a piece and his payroll would still be a fraction of revenue.

    Wild conjecture about how much Gabe is trickling down his wealth has got to be one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen. There is no such thing a good billionaire despite your wish Gabe is.

    We already determined Gabe is not giving the money to the people who do the work, he is giving them a small fraction, less than 1%.

    If you think for a second Gabe is not taking advantage of every tax loop hole his high paid accountants can find you are fucking crazy. He is definitely doing everything he can to avoid paying taxes.

    Gabe has a monopoly. He has not used this to increasingly provide cheaper services like a corporation in competition would. Steam's cut should have went down over time if there was good competition. I personally think anything above 10% for a digital platform is crazy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Gabe has a monopoly.

    Had me in the first half, lost me here. Offering a decent service while everyone else shoots themselves in the face does not make it a monopoly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (7 children)

    Steam meets the definition of a monopoly which is above 50% market share.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly

    I see "exclusive" in the definition, I don't see "50% + 1".

    Not to mention being sued as a monopoly in several lawsuits

    I could sue you for running a monopoly. I won't be successful because it isn't true, but I could still bring it to a court. Charges being filled doesn't mean they are true. That's why this is a court case and not a judgment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    "Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages."

    That also doesn't say anything over 50% is considered a monopoly. It just states it won't even be considered one if it's less than 50%.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    It is already conclusive they are a monopoly. If you can provide proof they are not then I will entertain you.

    That is the opposite to how this works. I can't just say "It is already conclusive that you are a prostitute. If you can provide proof that your are not I will entertain you."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    Hold up, they are not the ones making the content. While a digital distribution network deserves a cut they certainly do not deserve 30%. This is just a form of monopoly rent at this point extracting far more than they are worth taking advantage of developers.

    Not sure why you want to defend a monopoly, but it is your perogative I guess. Cheers!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    You didn't realize they had a 75% market share? Please save the bootlicking for someone who cares.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    I get you are in denial they have a monopoly. For instance Microsoft only has about 65% market share and everyone considers them a monopoly

    "A monopoly describes a market dominated by a single seller or producer that controls so much of that market share, anywhere from 50% to 100%, that it faces no meaningful competition."

    At this point you could even argue they have become a natural monopoly as they have not used a lot of anti-competitive practices. The only way to protect consumers is government regulation at this point since no competitor can reign them in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (9 children)

    Dude, I explained they are a monopoly. You have not provided anything other than conjecture that they are not a monopoly.

    I suppose I could field your questions, but considering how resistant to basic facts you are I am not sure I could provide satisfactory answers for you.

    I will give it a try though. What prevents developers from pulling from steam. The answer is nothing except for a loss in potential revenue since that is where (75%) the majority of PC gaming software is sold. There is also nothing preventing you from shutting off the power to your house. This doesn't suddenly make your power company not a monopoly.

    Whether someone likes or dislikes a monopoly has no bearing on the monopoly. Just because you liked IE in Windows didn't mean that MS didn't leverage their monopoly in an attempt to make it the Internet standard.

    Also, the antitrust bit. Steam requires you to sell your product for the same price even if a competitor charges less of a cut. You are not allowed to sell it for less to increase the sales on another platform that charges less. This is anti-competitive and a clear sign of a monopoly.

    What would it take for that company to compete. They can't and that is the point. Even after Epic has thrown billions at the issue they have been unable to move the needle. This makes me laugh at your previous question about building your own steam competitor from scratch. Clearly you could do it in your basement with no help when a multi-billion dollar company can't manage it.

    Please don't talk to me about court when you can't even agree to a basic fact. While I am not a lawyer I have studied monopoly laws and cases for years. That is why it is crystal clear that Steam is a monopoly.

    Your statement about no one competing because they don't want to is false, but if it were true that would definitely make Steam a natural monopoly which I alluded to earlier.

    Does steam prevent you from downloading and using another marketplace. No, but Windows never prevented you from installing another browser either. Clearly you are grasping here and I think studying some monopoly cases could help you.

    Keep in mind the US government, in particular, has given up on enforcing monopolies in the digital space as seen by their refusal to hold Google accountable for their many monopolistic practices. So don't worry, me calling Steam a monopoly or you accepting this reality isn't going to change shit.

    Your questions asking what would happen if Steam was broken up are missing the point. There are numerous policies that could be passed to ensure competition or just regulate the rights of consumers and publishers. I would recommend that Steam's anti-competitive policies be eliminated.

    To answer your final question, because of Steams dominant market presence they keep prices high (despite their great sales) and take a disproportionally unfair cut for the work they do. This actively harms customers through lack of competition and anti-competitive practices.

    Let me put it this way. If you poured you life into a indie game project and made a million in sales, do you feel a 300k cut is fair? Clearly you would feel that is way too much and it is for a digital marketplace.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (5 children)

    Why would you feel a cut is way too much!? Because it is their cut.... Oh yeah that is called reading comprehension something that you apparently lack, maybe it is a ESL thing. If so don't worry English is hard otherwise nice way to burn yourself I suppose. If that is the case I do appreciate self-deprivation humor.

    If you read the article that referenced the lawsuit you would see this is not about steam keys. Why you would think this shows a clear lack of understanding of what we are talking about.

    I have restated several times what the anti competitive practice Steam has engaged in. I won't say it again because it is getting annoying at this point.

    When I said intimately, I was referencing to your deep understanding of development hence the IDE reference. I guess you didn't get it because you are not a developer/programmer yourself. Or maybe it is the ESL thing.

    I would agree that plenty of people are satisfied or even happy with Steam. Of course there are a bunch of people who don't like Steam as well. I don't like Steam, but I have used it so I am sure Gabe can wipe away his tears with the money I have given him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Just fine here, I can't say the same for you though. Yes, you aren't just confusing. You are straight up mental. That is okay though.

    Yay! You replied! I'm so excited to see what you brought to the table!

    Look, you brought up steam keys AGAIN. What a strange strawman you have constructed. I have never mentioned steam keys, nor has any article I referenced. That hasn't stopped you though.

    Rainbow Six Siege multiplayer uses Steamplay. So, I'm actually wrong! The DLC is unlocked through a Steam Key, regardless of platform choice (not considering Xbox/PS5). Learning is fun! But, I guess you're not, a developer, or in the industry. So, how could you know. Sorry for not bringing that up, I thought you knew.

    If you think you have proved me wrong then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. What is that? The bridge guy already sold you several bridges in Brooklyn. That makes a lot of sense.

    I'm certain I have proved a few points of yours wrong. I don't care if you think so, or not. I'm just enjoying a debate.

    Not sure what case your talking about, you did not link it or reference it. Honestly you are kind of spooky at this point, but not in a good way. So far your legal mind can be summarized by you not even understanding the one thing Steam has done that I have mentioned several times. I will hard pass on debating you.

    What case? Are you stupid? The fucking case we are currently talking about. NY v Valve. The report came from that case, so seeing that case can help understand what we are taking about. I don't think you're a paralegal anymore, if you are, you should be fired lol.

    To summarize Steam is a monopoly by definition. Thanks for coming full circle with me. It has been a wild ride because you keep jerking the wheel and sending us off road. What are a few bumps though when you eventually get to your destination. Cheers!

    Valve is a monopoly, by definition, could be debated still. Are discussing legal monopoly, or the definition of monopoly? Are you a textualist? I've still argued my points, so you still have a chance to rebut. I've enjoyed the journey! Yeah, I'm am aggressive debator. Some say, a master debator.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)